The High Court has rejected a bid by a Free State judge for a permanent stay of prosecution over his theft, or as an alternative to a money laundering trial in relation to a client’s alleged embezzlement of Road Accident Funds dating back to when he was a lawyer.
The Free State High Court previously rejected an application by Judge Mpina Abednego Mathebula in Bloemfontein for a stay of his prosecution. He then turned to the SCA, where he now suffered another blow. He, together with his former candidate lawyer, faces criminal proceedings in a regional court, ranging from theft to alternative charges of money laundering and fraud. He practiced under the name Uys Mathebula Advocaten, in Sasolburg, Free State.
He allegedly committed the crimes between July 2012 and May 2018 while working as a lawyer. An elderly woman instructed Mathebula’s law firm to take action against the RAF on behalf of her young grandson, who had suffered injuries in a car accident. The claim was settled with the RAF and the High Court made an order of court as part of the settlement agreement, awarding the child R2.2 million plus costs, to be paid by the RAF.
In terms of the order, the R2.2 million was to be paid into the trust account of Mathebula Lawyers for the sole benefit of the child. The State alleges in the indictment that Mathebula failed to keep this money in a trust account as ordered.
It is the State’s case that, in addition to the R2.2 million sum awarded by the High Court, the RAF made interim settlement payments to his law firm, amounting to more than R900,000. The total amount paid to the law firm, including the High Court award, is said to be R3,142,089, of which R111,500 was paid to the complainant.
An amount of R1,258,110.13 was recovered from the second defendant {the candidate attorney} in settlement of an action brought against him by the complainant. An expert witness’s calculations show that a balance of R1,329,092 is still missing.
In this regard, the allegation in the charge sheet is that Mathebula made several unlawful transfers from the law firm’s trust account to his business account. These alleged transfers constitute charges of theft, or fraud, and money laundering.
He previously protested to the DPP to withdraw the charges against him. The request was denied, as was a subsequent request.
Mathebula then turned to the court. He argued that the decision to prosecute him was based on a lack of appreciation for how attorneys’ and clients’ fees are compiled. He further argued that his right to dignity is being damaged by the very fact that he is being persecuted without any facts to support him.
The appellant also alleged that the prosecution had subjected him to shame, ridicule and insults from members of the public through his indictment and appearance in criminal court and that his reputation and status had been “reduced to zero”.
In addition, the appellant has argued that the defense against the charges has cost him a significant amount of money. Consequently, he concluded, he was subjected to an “unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional prosecution.”
The appeals court noted that Mathebula’s case was based on social prejudice and financial losses resulting from the prosecution. But, he said, this applies to every suspect.
The SCA concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances for the court’s intervention in the ongoing criminal proceedings.
Zelda Venter
iol.co.za